Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

[Discussion moved to 6man)

At 10:01 AM 02-03-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
>That's a comment on a future decision,  not a decision that can be acted upon.
>
>Simple: what would have happened if Suresh had changed his mind, and 
>"verified" the erratum? -- You'd have a spring document that you 
>claimed to have wg consensus based on an incorrect assumption.
>
>i.e., the consensus outcome was sent based on an *assumption*, not 
>on a decision.

I was reminded of the following on reading the SPRING discussions: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/VbT1OuHTouS9GrVR934EwOnzp64/

The points which you raised (please see quoted text) can be go both 
ways, i.e. favorably or unfavorably if it has to be considered 
formally.  I would rate the erratum as "minor" within the context of 
the dispute.  The rationale for that is that:

   (a) The decisions are distinct from each other.  A decision in 6MAN does,
       from a procedural perspective, cannot be used in a SPRING process
       discussion.

   (b) An erratum in an "approved" state does not reflect IETF 
Consensus.  There
       is a message [1] from Mr Klensin about that.

Please see the message at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_gG2foiugk5B7w3TpnPvBbjHDzs/ 
I would argue, from a process perspective, that the intent of the 
text under dispute should be read in that light.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/r1WnAemu12WcdT7VoFpPUI3j6pk/